The Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 empower the Registrar to ...

Tribunal rules allow registrar to grant time to cure defects. Appeal refiling date after curing defects can't be treated as fresh filing date for limitation.

Case Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy

August 5, 2024

The Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 empower the Registrar to decline registration of an appeal when defects are not cured, and to grant time for curing defects. If defects are cured and the appeal is registered, the date of refiling after curing defects cannot be treated as the fresh filing date for computing limitation. In this case, the appeal was e-filed within 30 days from the impugned order, so it cannot be barred by time limitation. Non-compliance with the rule requiring a certified copy of the order does not warrant rejection, as the court has power to extend time or waive compliance. The delay of 86 days in refiling the appeal after curing defects was condoned, and this order does not warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 empower the Registrar to ...

Tribunal rules allow registrar to grant time to cure defects. Appeal refiling date after curing defects can't be treated as fresh filing date for limitation.

Case Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy

August 5, 2024

You may also like:

Interest on refunds u/s 244A - Having availed the time for rectifying the defects and claiming interest for the defect rectification time is unavailable. Such an...

The notification amends the Companies (Registration of Foreign Companies) Rules, 2014. It substitutes the word "Registrar" with "Registrar, Central Registration Centre"...

Maintainability of appeal - making pre-deposit under Central Excise by debiting the Electronic Cash Ledger and Electronic Credit Ledger - it has to be held that...

Permission to carry out the amendment in the shipping bills - rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedural), Rules 1992 - About eighteen months have passed since the order was...

Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

The High Court correctly distinguished between the jurisdiction vested in every person or public office and the District Registrar in determining penalty on...

Limitation Period for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) - Scrutiny Assessment - Relevant date - after filing of the return of income, defect notice u/s 139(9) had been sent...

Filing of Form GST TRAN-1 - time limit for filing of the form - The time limit stipulated under Rule 117 of the Rules is not ultra vires of the Act. This Rule is...

Validity of Notice issued u/s 143(2) - Defective return - Removal of defect beyond 15 days u/s 139(9) - AO should have treated the return as non-est when the assessee...

Refusal to grant of permission to remove the goods for further processing under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - The order does not mention any specific...

CENVAT Credit - Removal of capital goods - Depreciation - Deduction of 2.5% to be applied from the date of availing credit, not from the date of receiving or putting to...

Power of tribunal to review application - It is the well laid down proposition of law that ‘in the absence of any power of ‘Review’ or ‘Recall’ vested with the...

Refund claim of service tax paid on cancelled transactions - Post GST era - Rejection of refund under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules read with Sec 142(5) of CGST Act -...

Correctness of erasure of credit already availed by prospective invalidation of eligibility for retention of credit that would subject those services already procured...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of registration u/s 80G(5)(iii). The provisional registration was questioned due to a delay in applying for regular...

Quick Updates: